Share:

Related

Comments

Hey, I miss all the comments about how Karl Rove was going to be hung for treason by the end of August! Looks like Cindy Sheehan has captured the attention of the MSM and displaced all those Valerie Plame rantings.

And can some one explain the rationale behind the Northwest strike? The airlines are one step away from going bankrupt, so the union thinks this is a good time to disrupt flights! Who do they think pays their inflated salaries, unsupportable pensions, and luxuious health insurance?

Here’s a topic — why do posts have to be on-topic? What’s wrong with off-topic posts? Why can’t we have a clean sandbox EVERY FUCKING DAY OF THE WEEK? Do you expect the kitties to shit only once a week? Huh Goldy? Huh?

Let’s see what other bullshit Stefan is posting. Hmmmm … here’s something he DIDN’T post.

On Aug. 18 (i.e., yesterday), Stefan claimed “Dean Logan has violated the Public Disclosure Act yet again ….” He based this on

“On the evening of Tuesday, August 9th, I emailed a request to Dean Logan asking for a copy of the absentee ballot envelope returned by Donald Sims for the September 2004 primary. I followed up the next day with this letter by fax and first-class mail (redacted for posting). The five-day statutory deadline for responding to public records requests has come and gone without any response from Dean Logan.”

Well let’s see. First of all, the e-mail doesn’t count because RCW 42.17.270 only requires public agencies to “honor requests received by mail ….” A link to the “letter” reveals that Stefan’s mailed request is dated Aug. 10, but that doesn’t mean he mailed it on Aug. 10. However, let’s assume he did. RCW 42.17.320 gives the public agency “five business days” after “receiving” the request to respond.

Let’s count. Stefan’s request could not possibly have been delivered before Aug. 11; more likely on Aug. 12. Let’s assume Aug. 11. So Aug. 11 and 12 are two business days. Aug. 15, 16, and 17 are three more business days. That’s a total of five business days. If KCRE dropped a response in the outgoing mail on Aug. 17, Stefan MIGHT have got it Aug. 18 but more likely Aug. 19.

Inasmuch as Stefan posted his diatribe at 3:23 PM on Aug. 18, KCRE’s response would appear not to be untimely as of the time Stefan wrote his diatribe. What time is your mail delivery, Stefan? Late afternoon? Had you received your Aug. 18 mail delivery yet?

But the more interesting question is, has Stefan received a response from KCRE as of today? I see NOTHING on his web site — no update — to indicate it still hasn’t arrived. Which is highly suspicious. Anytime Stefan stops whining about something, it’s highly suspicious.

So tell us Stefan, has KCRE responded, and what is the postmark date on the envelope? Betcha you don’t want to tell, because you don’t want to look like an ass — again.

Oh, one more thing, HOW MUCH in penalties have you recovered from King County to date for public records violations? Are you above $0.00 yet?

You know with Kerry in town this week, Edwards here last week and with Seafair just two weeks ago gives me a great idea. Wouldn’t it be great to relive the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign as an Opera? I can see it now. Kerry comes out with his chest puffed out brandishing 3 purple hearts.

Singing: I serve in Vietnam…. I served in Vietnam… Of course Edwards the whole time is dancing around Kerry in a fuffy leotard brushing his silky hair.

The number #4 man in Al Qaida is being promoted to #3 because of an unexpected vacancy. Osama bin Laden is showing the new man around headquarters while explaining the pay and benefits. They come to a tent with a goat tied up inside.

“This is the company goat,” Osama says. “You get him two days a week.”

An interesting asside on the minnow and his followers of the lord of lies:

In the mid-60s, Dan Evans help lead the purging of the Washington GOP of the Birchers and other far right wing nuts who were dragging the party down both because there ideas were so unpalatable and because there demands for orthodox purity did nothing but produce losers. The only Republican Govenors in modern memory came about after the far right was taken care of. The GOP had some real wins in what had been a very liberal state.

Fourty years later, in the mid-00s, The minnow and his followers want to lead a purge of the party of the moderates and all others who will not follow their orthodox purity. Strangely enough, these are their only statewide office holders, and the only ones that can (and do) win in the democratic strong holds. The minnow and his followers would rather have orthodox purity then support people that agree 80% with them. They have developed a littel fantasy world around themselves, and anyone who brings up reality is assumed to be a part of the grand conspiracy against them. There lack of touch with reality explains why the minnow and his followers couldn’t see how bad their elections case was (the law was fairly clear, and they had no facts to support them), and explains why as soon as Judge Bridges ruled against them, he suddenly became part of the conspiracy.

So, they will turn on Sam Reed, Norm Maleng, and, eventually, Rob McKenna, because they refuse to ignore reality and drink deep the Koolaide the minnow sales. They will destroy good policy that the Republican office holders support, like improving the roads, because there fantasy world is more important to them than good policy. Good for the Democrats, but very sad for this state and for a Republican party that will become more and more marginalized at the state level.

I’ve got a question for you moonbats. It’s actually a serious question. What would be your reaction to an initiative that would mandate fairness in contested custody divorce cases?

It would say that in every family court jurisdiction over a one year period, 50% of custody awards go to mother and 50% go to father. Of course, there would have to be investigations of both parents to make sure they aren’t nut cases. But in a “normal” situation like most of them are… what would be wrong with giving the father a fair chance at custody.

I’ll be especially interested to hear what the vaginized “men” think about this.

Why no rants and raves on the bullshit indoor smoking ban intiative I-901? I figured there’s enough whiners in King County and Seattle to fall for it’s BS scare tactics, misinformation, and the radical, extreme personal opinions of a sniveling little asshole named Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds; here in Bellingham, who is leading this crusade for his own self-serving, selfish, and self-promotional reasons. If anyone knows who I am referring to, then enough said. His 15 minutes of unjustified fame are about over. NO on I-901! Hhhhhmmmmm……

The CIA’s former bin Laden desk chief revealed Thursday night that Clinton administration lawyers warned counterterrorism agents that Osama bin Laden had to be kept as comfortable as possible if they captured him during planned raids into Afghanistan.

“The lawyers were more concerned with bin Laden`s safety and his comfort than they were with the officers charged with capturing him,” former bin Laden desk chief Michael Scheuer told MSNBC’s “Hardball.”

“We had to build an ergonomically designed chair to put him in, [for] special comfort in terms of how he was shackled into the chair,” Scheuer explained. “They even worried about what kind of tape to gag him with so it wouldn’t irritate his beard.” “The lawyers are the bane of the intelligence community,” the former CIA man lamented.

Concerns like that, as well as foot-dragging by the White House, resulted in one missed opportunity after another to get the al-Qaida terror mastermind, Scheuer said.

“We had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions decided that the information was not good enough to act,” he claimed.

Although sharply critical of President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, the CIA counterterrorism specialist put the blame for bin Laden’s escape firmly on Clinton.

“In terms of which administration had more chances, Mr. Clinton’s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr. Bush has until this day,” Scheuer said.

I suggest you take your researches one step further and see the play, The Vagina Monologues, since you’ve come to the conclusion that we liberal men are “vaginized” or whipped or whatever.

One whopper of a book there you’re writing Redneck. Regnery will publish it in a heartbeat and the Moonies and the rest of Rove’s Christian Army will lap up the first printing. “Mark the Redneck’s guide to the Liberal Mind” – a bestseller for sure.

don’t expect Stefan to respond to my post at #8, because he never responds to any of my posts, even though we all know he reads HorsesAss.

Stefan is scared shitless of a 6-lb. bunny.

Comment by Roger Rabbit— 8/19/05 @ 11:47 pm

Hey bunny rabbit you haven’t told use about you FEARs lately. What happen to you in Nam or at home that causes these Anger out bursts? You friend Kerry also serve the NVA as well in France after his dischsrge for the Navy. Headless Lucy did you come from Blegrade, Yugo, you sound like someone I know that grew up their a few years back? Rujax206 give me your opion about girly-boys from Seattle who can’t face reality?

Under current law, Washington judges are required to give paramount consideration to the child’s best interests. What the parents want is subordinate to meeting the children’s needs. I don’t think that should change, because a child is a human being, not property.

It’s possible that even-handed consideration by judges of what’s best for the children might result in something close to mathematical parity between fathers and mothers. This remains to be seen. A vast number of noncustodial fathers, and not a few judges and lawyers, believe there is a built-in bias in the system for awarding custody to the mother.

I don’t believe legally-mandated mathematical parity is the best way to remove this bias from the system. In some cases, it might conflict with the children’s best interests. The latter should continue to guide judges in determining custody. The problem is not inequality of result per se, it’s having the judge being against the father’s desire for custody going in. We should focus on getting the bias out of the system.

Courts and lawyers occasionally have tried to solve the custody dilemma by experimenting with creative custody schemes. The dilemma, of course, is that a child can’t be in two places at the same time. The creative custody approach usually focuses on giving two parents equal shares of custody of one child. These custody orders typically use a week-on, week-off physical custody schedule (or alternating 3-day and 4-day weeks), and require the parents to consult and agree on major child-rearing decisions. This might work with the right parents, but there are a number of practical objections, the most serious of which is that it creates instability and confusion for the child. It works only if the parents live near each other and cooperate with each other, which is atypical of post-divorce situations. Courts and judges have to solve real-world problems, and reality usually means one parent is going to do most of the child-rearing, make the decisions, and have physical custody most of the time.

It’s important to understand that visitation is a different issue. Visitation is not custody, but simply a right to have time with the child. Visitation disputes are commonplace and a major source of complaint from non-custodial parents. In the 1990s, the Washington legislature passed a law that penalized mothers for wrongfully denying visitation, but Governor Locke vetoed it at the urging of child advocates and others. Some people questioned whether this was the right approach to the problem. For one thing, they argued, how can a custodial mother take proper care of the children if she’s in jail?

Mark, I don’t know the answer to the custody problem yet. I’m in the camp of judges and lawyers who agree the existing system is flawed and needs to be changed. That doesn’t necessarily mean I side with fathers, it simply means that I recognize there’s a bias built in the system that is creating conflict between parents, burdening the legal system, and encouraging some fathers to shirk their child support obligations. If you talk to people in the state agency that enforces child support, you will find that custody and visitation grievances are a major cause of non-payment. And aside from these practical considerations, it’s a question of fundamental fairness — i.e., fathers as a group are being treated unfairly, and our legal system should strive for fairness.

Mark, all I can tell you is that a lot of people recognize a problem exists, are on board for doing something about it, and are working on it. This includes academics, social workers, lawyers, judges, and legislators. There’s a lot of discussion going on in the field of family law, and a lot of ideas out there. There also are groups that advocate and lobby on behalf of fathers. I think one thing that should happen is that within the legal profession, on the panels and discussion groups that judges and lawyers use to thrash out the legal profession’s stance on the issue, both fathers and mothers should be invited to sit at the discussion table and have input, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Same for academic groups and legislative meetings. There are a lot of bright people among us and it’s hard for me to believe that group think with input from all viewpoints can’t eventually come up with something workable. It might be something as simple as everyone agreeing that the day of gender bias in custody awards has come and gone, and we’re going to train judges to be gender neutral in dealing with custody issues, and judges will commit themselves to be gender neutral. I think to some extent that’s already happening on an ad hoc basis. Some sort of statistical tracking might also help focus attention on the issue and provide impetus to keep things moving in the right direction, similar to the work that was done a generation ago in using statistics to track sentencing disparities between minority and white defendants. There are a lot of other ideas that could be discussed.

The main thing is to find a way to get involved in the processes that drive change, and to understand that changing a deeply embedded social and judicial custom won’t happen overnight. It takes time, and patience is needed. But I think this change is possible and will occur.

Whether indoor smoking is banned should be based on scientific and medical evidence of whether it creates a significant health risk for non-smokers, not on what smokers what, or on the polemics of anti-smokers. It’s a health issue, pure and simple. Second-hand smoke either is bad for the rest of us, or it isn’t, period. That’s what should govern whether indoor smoking is permitted or banned.

The main thing is to find a way to get involved in the processes that drive change, and to understand that changing a deeply embedded social and judicial custom won’t happen overnight. It takes time, and patience is needed. But I think this change is possible and will occur.

Comment by Roger Rabbit— 8/20/05 @ 11:51 am

Hey Wabbit that the best statement you made and written on this web site. You got my support on the subject matter. Now what are your real FEARS today and did you help some old lady across the street. God Bless, and you to Headless Lucy

Rabbit @ 31 – All the usual BS aside for a minute… thank you for your thoughtful reply. For once we agree.

The creative custody schemes are stupid. As you said, the child can’t be in two places at once. And if the parents could get along that well, they wouldn’t have split in the first place. So we agree on that I think.

This issue has to move to the forefront. The current system is broken, and the children are the losers. The notion that the system looks out for the best interest of the child is ludicrous on its face. I have a story I could tell about my daughter, but I won’t go into it here. The story turns out OK though… she’s safe with me now.

If there isn’t a mathematical parity law, then how will the system change? I don’t see any way that it can. In the same way there are “diversity” targets, why not have fairness targets too?

On the issue of child support, that system is broken too. There should at least be an accountability requirement where the recipient has to show where the money went.

I’d love to be part of the discussions that are taking place. If you could direct me to how I can get involved, I’d be very appreciative.

From the liberal viewpoint, the main issues concerning Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans are (1) the Swift Boat Veterans lied about what Kerry did in Vietnam, and (2) campaigning by smearing the opponent instead of debating issues.

I’ll tell you how the Swift Boat smear campaign affected me. It spelled the end of the Band of Brothers, that’s what. Ever since I came home from Vietnam, I’ve had an affinity and loyalty for my fellow Vietnam veterans that I put above politics and everything else. They were my brothers, period — no matter what partisan or other differences might otherwise separate us.

No more. The Swift Boat veterans are dishonorable men. They opened my eyes to the fact not all Vietnam veterans deserve equal respect or loyalty. By putting partisan gain above honor, honesty, and truthfulness, they ruptured that bond of fraternity and loyalty. They destroyed the Band of Brothers.

I’m sure there are a lot of other Vietnam veterans who feel the same way.

gone for 11 weeks, and the rants and craziness has n’er been one bit reduced. However, after the idiocy of the comments between some of the above in the last few threads, i find today’s off topic topical discourse actually refreshing. Thanks… That said: as for Northwest Air NYT reports “In the last several months, the airline had spent more than $100 million to hire and train 1,500 substitutes, many of them licensed mechanics who had worked at other airlines. The airline had also hired and trained 1,100 substitute flight attendants, in case their union stages a sympathy strike.”

Thus, here’s a question proposed by David Sirota that brings it more into focus. “If the company is supposedly in such severe financial straits that worker pay cuts are required, how do these executives have $100 million of company money to throw around for anti-union activities?”

Better to spend a hundred million now and force the union to abandon their positions then to actually work-out negotiated settlements that would provide living wages, health care for families, and valuable incomes that would be spent in the communities in which the employees live, including Eastern and Western Washington.

As for the discussion on child custody(much more civil than previous ideological name calling btw) i have a couple of thoughts. My own experiences(and i have more than one should in one lifetime) have led me to demand the use of mediators and arbitrators in child custody and child support issues. The laws at the Federal and State levels provide for this type of input and need to be supported financially as well. Neutral experienced negotiators whose roles is to create the best consensual agreement out of hideous bureaucratic meddling and high strung emotional rantings facilitate outcomes that really do make people feel they are respected, listened to, and supported. The mediation/arbitration agents are not State/County employees and are outside the “system.” They receive compensation from the system for their services. They benefit all involved, as they also meet with the case workers and with the support enforcement officers. Their decisions(some binding some not binding depending upon jurisdictions) are surprisingly profound. If one feels the need to craft initiatives to effect change within and without the system then i would suggest increasing the role and support for this type of program. The ‘state’ should be viewed as another party in a three party involvement, forced by laws and regulations to enforce decisions and agreements. Mediators/arbitrators are not parties within the process they are the conciliators/negotiators between the three or four(must count the kids).

Washington State Bar Association’s Family Law Section: http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/gr.....fault1.htm Trying writing to the WSBA and asking if this section has any study or discussion groups that non-lawyers can participate in. Note the section “provides input and testimony on proposed legislation affecting family law, meets with the Superior Court Judges’ Association every year to help improve practice, and often comments on proposed court rules.”

Checking the web site of the Office of Administrator for the Courts http://www.courts.wa.gov/programs_orgs/ I don’t see a specific board or commission devoted to family law issues, but trying writing to this agency to ask them if there’s any standing committees or groups operating under the aegis of the court system dealing with these topics. This office, like the Family Law Section, might be able to give you leads to people and groups in the academic community and general community working on these issues.

By all means, contact your legislators and ask them if there are any legislative studies going on, or any legislative processes in which parents can participate, and how you can be kept informed of what’s happening in the legislature on these issues.

Rabbit @ 40 – Maybe I read too much into your earlier comments about discussions happening with all stakeholders in the field.

I interpreted your comment to mean that there are already some groups with standing meetings and agendas that are working the problem. Is that the case, or is it just at the watercooler buzz stage right now?

Spyder @ 39 – But at the end of the day, you still don’t have custody, and you’re still writing huge checks every month. You go into the mediation in a weak position, with only the hope of maybe getting some minor tweaks to a court order that is egregiously unfair.

I’m not talking about tweaks. I’m talking about fundamental reform from the ground up.

The child support accountability problem is a tough one. The Washington legislature has grappled with this notion, and father’s advocates keep raising it, but the legislature has consistently rejected bills that impose an accounting requirement on custodial parents. You will run into political opposition from women’s and child advocacy groups. In addition, there are practical problems with the idea, in that many custodial parents lack the bookkeeping skills required to comply with an accounting requirement. Finally, is there really a problem?

Most single parents have modest means, and given the costs of raising of children, as a practical matter the child support does get spent on the child’s necessities. The fact it is commingled with other household income doesn’t change the fact that the child benefits from the money spent on rent, food, etc. for all the household members in common. Most single parents simply are not in a position to squander the support money. So, in most cases, economic necessity assures that support money will be spent for the child’s benefit, without need of other enforcement measures. We also have to keep in mind that outside intervention by courts or social agencies is expensive, and somebody has to pay that expense — if not the parents (adding another financial burden) then taxpayers (adding another item of government spending).

In any individual case, if support money is being misused (this is hard to prove), the paying parent can ask the court to hold the custodial parent in contempt. Like any litigation, this isn’t cheap; and you need to realize going in that the court has limited enforcement options at its disposal. It’s the old story of leading the mare to the trough, but you can’t make her drink. You also will run into the aforementioned reluctance of judges to throw custodial parents in jail.

Under Washington law, child support technically is the property of the child, and the custodial parent is legally a trustee of the support money with an enforceable fiduciary duty to spend it on the child. In exceptional cases involving enough money to make litigation worthwhile and a defendant who isn’t judgment proof, this gives you another legal option — one that’s not practical for most people, but that a lawyer can look at in cases involving parties with deep pockets. It’s legally possible to bring a lawsuit on the child’s behalf (after appointing a GAL to represent the child’s intersts) against the custodial parent to recover the misappropriated support money from the custodial parent’s other assets and income. The money then should be put in a trust account maintained under court supervision to be spent for the child’s benefit. This is a way to have a disinterested person supervise the custodial parent’s use of the support money. It’s an expensive way to go about it, though, and appropriate only in cases involving a substantial amount of money.

In extreme cases, where the custodial parent is spending the child support money in bars, on drugs, or on boyfriends, the non-custodial parent should focus on custody rather than money. In these cases, the children probably are being neglected as well, and if the non-custodial parent is a responsible person capable of providing a suitable home for the children, his objective should not be forcing the custodial parent to spend the money on the children, but on getting custody so the children are taken care of properly. Sometimes, a custodial parent behaving this way will relinquish custody without the expense of a legal fight, as she’s more than happy to be relieved of the burden and gain her freedom.

While we’re talking about child support, I may as well mention how Washington’s child support system works.

The amount of child support you pay is a function of (a) your after-tax income, and (b) the number of children you are legally obligated to support and do support. (They don’t count if you’re not supporting them.)

Washington’s child support schedule is based on economy survey data showing what parents in various income brackets actually spend on their children. The idea is that the children will continue to enjoy the same standard of living they had before their parents split up, i.e., it protects the children from suffering financially from what their parents decided to do. That’s the philosophy behind it, but this philosophy means the parents have to maintain their children at the former lifestyle even though the parents now have increased expenses for maintaining two separate households, legal expenses, and so on. It also means the child support payment includes not only necessities like food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education, but also discretionary stuff like X-Boxes, designer clothes, and fancy vacations if average parents in your income bracket are spending money on such items, because the support schedule is driven by the actual spending of parents in the income bracket, most of whom are living together and don’t have the extra expenses that separated parents face.

This is unrealistic and obviously calls for reform. However, you will encounter significant political resistance to changing the support schedule.

There are some specific things non-custodial parents can do to lighten their support burden. The biggest mistake parents make is not taking advantage of the right to have their support order periodically adjusted, or adjusted for changed circumstances. Too many parents attempt to pay support they can no longer afford and allow themselves to get behind before taking action to get their support orders modified. The problem with this is, you can’t modify it retroactively; the modification will only take effect in the month following the entry of the new order, and the parent who waited will consequently be stuck with a debt for the support he didn’t pay during the period he waited.

You have the right to have the support recomputed every two or three years (I forget which) without reason or explanation, and you can request a recomputation any time there’s a change of circumstances (job loss, addition of another child, etc.). In Washington, stepchildren usually are considered under factor (b) above if you are actually supporting them.

As far as reforming child support, I think the biggest and most important change is to lobby for a schedule that takes into consideration the additional expenses that separated parents have, and the fact it’s simply unrealistic to expect them to maintain their children at the lifestyle they had when the family was together. This argument is especially strong where you can show a lower support amount is sufficient for the children’s necessities and the extra support is paying for luxuries. The argument here is that luxuries for the children should not take precedence over the parent’s necessities when the parent can’t afford both. As a practical matter, it is counterproductive to put financial burdens on parents they can’t pay, because then the parent will give up trying to pay his support obligation and may decide to run or evade enforcement. This increases collection costs for the state and is harmful to the children. I think legislators will be receptive to this argument.

I was paying about $1200/mo. There is no way to spend that much money on one child every month. Can’t be done. Now that she’s with me, I know that for an absolute fact. Period. The right amount is closer to one third or one half that amount.

On the thing about “not having the bookeeping skills”. C’mon, if they can’t make a list, then they’re also to stupid to be raising children. They shouldn’t even be allowed to breed.

Your last paragraph describes the situation I was facing. But as you know, the bar for changing custody is extremely high. My attorney estimated it would cost between $25k and $30k to engage in the fight, and it would go on for at least 18 – 24 months.

I also think by taking the guaranteed payday out of the process, we’d see the divorce rate plummet as women decide it’s too risky to attempt to cash in.

Aren’t socialist governments worderful. Of course, all you lefties would blame all of Africa’s troubles on European clonialism. And isn’t the UN doing a GREAT job; totally worthless, maybe worse that worthless.

Northwest mechanics don’t care if NWA goes bankrupt. “We will not not let NWA dictate a contract to us.”

Well, boys and girls if NWA does go bankrupt, NWA WILL DICTATE TERMS TO YOU. The only negotiating that will take place is between NWA and it’s creditors. It looks to me like you idiots are in the process of throwing all of you bargaining rights away. Why? Do you hate yourselves, your fellow employees and the stockholders that much? Those are the only people who will be hurt.

Idiots, one and all!!!!

PS. I wonder if Airbus (aka the French, British and German governments) will bail NWA out again?

I think things are really changing… albeit slowly. The burdon of these changes rest heavily on the parents however. The courts can only do so much for the benefit of the child. The rest is up to the parents. My own personal experience was during my own divorce. The ex and I worked real hard on this issue to come to an agreement and decided that shared custody, 50/50 was in our son’s best interest. We were still angry at each other but that had nothing to do with our son.

In the end, the judge in our case commended us for what we had done and even exempted us from having to take the required parental class.

It worked. We both are raising a great kid who is not 10. Obviously we live in the same town and that had a significant impact.

Ironically, after nearly six years, my ex is now my girlfriend. Strange twist of fate but I think I can attribute that to our mutual respect for our son and his future and thus each other.

People going through divorce need to understand some basics and live accordingly. While I don’t particularly like enforced education I think if those going through the more ugly divorces were directed to some classes or counseling the courts would have less judgement to pass and people could work issues like custody out themselves.

After my service tour, I volunteered in veterans service center in the Bay Area and at Ft. Ord. I met a lot of guys who had a lot worse time of it than I. Some were pretty messed up. But, I never met anyone who got three purple hearts in 67 days without being hospitalized. And I never, never, NEVER met any one who used the three wound exemption to request early rotation home.

“I was paying about $1200/mo. There is no way to spend that much money on one child every month.”

Washington uses an income-based support schedule, as opposed to a needs-based one. The $1200 was based on your income. Few parents pay that much for 1 child. A typical order is $200 to $400 a month for all the children.

“The right amount is closer to one third or one half that amount.”

That’s where most people would end up under a needs-based schedule, when you split the child’s expenses between both parents, as Washington does.

“On the thing about ‘not having the bookeeping skills’. C’mon, if they can’t make a list, then they’re also to stupid to be raising children.”

Child support isn’t about raising children, it’s about paying for their upkeep. Children of stupid parents have to eat, too. And it doesn’t take brains to reproduce — even earthworms can do it. (I could say something here about those who choose stupid people to have children with, but I won’t.)

“Your last paragraph describes the situation I was facing. But as you know, the bar for changing custody is extremely high. My attorney estimated it would cost between $25k and $30k to engage in the fight, and it would go on for at least 18 – 24 months.”

In my opinion, custody is not worth fighting for unless the child is at risk. Under our court sytem the mother usually gets custody, but most mothers take good care of their children. It’s not worth fighting for custody just because you’d like to have custody.

In any case, custody orders mean less as the children get older. Custody battles are fought over young children, because “custody” is nearly meaningless after they become teenagers. Older children go where they want to, regardless of what the court order says. In many cases, the mother asks the father to take them because they’ve gotten too much for her to handle.

“I also think by taking the guaranteed payday out of the process, we’d see the divorce rate plummet as women decide it’s too risky to attempt to cash in.”

The women’s groups would laugh you off the planet for this one! Nobody gets divorced to collect child support! Trust me on this.

I think there is a much larger issue here, and that is society’s acceptance of the idea of throw-away marriages. I’m not saying people should stay married no matter what. Sometimes the kids are better off if you don’t. But we know from countless studies that divorce is bad for children. It’s hard on the parents, too. Americans need to rediscover the concept of “commitment” and try working out their problems before calling the lawyers. No marriage is perfect and they’re all hard work. And the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence. There isn’t a perfect man or woman out there.

I don’t know anything about being divorced, but I know a lot about making a difficult marriage work. I don’t believe in throwing human beings away. We’re all flawed. If you decide to put up with anything from someone who loves you, and I mean anything, you’re going to make it.

Rabbit @ 50 – OK. Thanks for what you gave me. This is a situation that’s ripe for reform…

It’s interesting that the tone of this discussion so far has been real civil. So I guess it’s not a left/right issue. I’m guessing the division will be between “wipers” and “shakers”.

I was hoping to get more comments on this topic. I got helluva lot more yesterday with stink bait in the crabpot. But this is a serious issue that warrants serious discussion, especially here in the Feminist Utopia of Washington (FUWA).

Can the rest of you give me some input on this topic? See post #19. If necessary, ask your wife or “life partner” if it’s OK to comment to straighten me out. You can even let her review and approve what you say. Hell, you could even let her comment if she can write a few coherent sentences.

Vietnam had its own set of rules. Officers got medals for things enlisted men got no recognition for — happened every day. Medals were awarded according to the pecking order, which created resentment in the lower ranks, and not a few guys brought this resentment home. It also cheapens Vietnam-era medals in the eyes of many, especially those awarded to officers. Some guys who saw their buddies get blown to bits resent Kerry accepting 3 Purple Hearts for 3 minor wounds — that’s what’s really going on here.

Plus, in the hard-core combat units, where deaths and serious wounds were frequent occurrences, there was an unwritten code that you don’t ask for or accept a PH for minor wounds. But tht is not a legal rule. The Purple Heart is awarded to anyone injured by enemy action. It’s not feasible to try to define how serious the wound has to be. The thing is, a piece of shrap that nicks your arm could just as easily go through your heart, or a bullet that grazes your scalp would kill you in another half-inch. If you’ve been wounded by the enemy, however slightly, you’ve been in mortal danger, and you’ve had a close call. The guy who wounded you was trying to kill you, and nearly succeeded. So my question to you is, are you going to resent a guy — any guy — being awarded a Purple Heart for that, just because he didn’t bleed enough to suit you? Seems judgmental to me.

Not many of us got to serve 4-month tours in the Nam. Gore did, because he was a senator’s son. Bush didn’t serve any time in Nam, because he was a congressman’s son. I just didn’t see very many guys with that kind of pull in the bush. But Kerry went into the bush. Riverine patrols in the Delta were fucking dangerous duty. And don’t forget, this was Kerry’s second tour in theater, he didn’t have to go at all. It’s true he served his first tour on a ship, but what the hell, he was in the Navy, and Navy guys usually serve on ships! He volunteered for that shit, he saw action, and he was nearly killed.

All of the people on his boat — and I mean all of them regardless of how they feel about his politics — stood by Kerry and corroborated his version of what happened. No honest person can seriously argue the Swift Boat Veterans were anything but a partisan group organized for campaign purposes. The people who dreamed up and created the SBV organization weren’t veterans at all. They were veteran GOP operatives known for their involvement in past smear campaigns. The group’s initial funding came from the Texas GOP’s biggest individual donor. The Swift Boat veterans who attacked Kerry are liars, I’m convinced of it. There just is no evidence to support their version of events, in fact, their own statements at the time of those events contradict what they said during the campaign. It was attack politics, accomplished with lies, pure and simple. In the end, this has nothing to do with medals or wounds or how long someone’s tour of duty was. It’s about putting people in high office by smearing the opposition instead of debating issues that affect voters’ lives. It’s about playing dirty politics.

Here is what I’ll say about Kerry’s 4-month tour of duty. There was a guy in my unit who served only 5 weeks. Would you take away his Medal of Honor because he served only 5 weeks? The shrapnel that scratched Kerry missed taking his life by inches. The shrapnel that hit the guy of whom I’m speaking didn’t miss. The Medal of Honor was for putting himself between the grenade the and men he saved. Kerry put himself between the enemy and his men. That’s why they stood with him on that platform at the Democratic Convention, even though they’re not all Democrats. You may resent Kerry’s 3 Purple Hearts, but from my perspective, he was only inches away from his own Medal of Honor — and death.

I don’t know anything about being divorced, but I know a lot about making a difficult marriage work. I don’t believe in throwing human beings away. We’re all flawed. If you decide to put up with anything from someone who loves you, and I mean anything, you’re going to make it.

Comment by Roger Rabbit— 8/20/05 @ 4:58 pm

Hey Wabbit you finally did a great deed for the day please pat yourself on the back. Yes you said two great things today that I agree on. My dad is on his eight marriage and the last seems to be working. I ditto we are all flawed bit, and please don’t give up on people even Mr. Bill.

Baynative – I’m with Wabbit @ 54. Yer barkin up the wrong tree. Stop right now before you make a fool of yourself.

Any soldier who ever got shot at has earned our respect, even if they’re 100% wrong on every single political issue.

Comment by Mark The Redneck— 8/20/05 @ 5:53 pm Mark the Redneck, the question is who put you in for the award? My brother in Law when to Nam and won four Purple Harts in one tour, and two years ago he died from agent orange. If someone pins it on your chest then you are entitled to wear it. Other than that it is smoke and mirrors.

I’m a Chief and I speak for all my troops point of view whether its my point of view or theirs. I put this uniform on in 1966 and still serving our country. I write the awards for my chaps and been present when they are pin on.

I don’t call anyone a Liars without doing my own home work. The Swift Boat folks presented their own point of view you can take it or leave it. What I beleive is meanless if I can’t support it with facts, so no comment on Kerry.

Jimmynap the Beer is great and the words flow better and the grammer also fails. Everyone except the Wabbit, he got an anger problem that he is working on. Please everyone give Headless Lucy a big Hug.

The ABC affiliate in Salt Lake City refused to air an anti-war commercial featuring Cindy Sheehan. A station spokesperson said management felt the aid was “inappropriate” for the station’s audience and would not be “well received” in SLC.

I will say I found equal amounts of concern and disbelief in the swift accounts.

Alot of it could have been cleared up had Kerry released his records, which to date he has not done completely.

I downloaded his DD214 and found some problems in it in format and such particularly in the decorations block. it also was incomplete since it referenced a continuation sheet that was not posted. There was a corrections sheet dated many years later, but it didnt clear up the anomilies.

My end analysis is that had Kerry been telling the truth, he could have easily ptoven it with the complete documents, which as i said he still has not released. I wish he would, to end the debate.

I am still concerned about the DD214 mistakes, but i also freely admit my analysis is not complete.

That said, I think reasonable suspician remains that both sides were hiding and fibbing, and at this stage we may never know the truth. In the end it was politics.

I do know a bet i worked with will never like the guy because of what he did.

While it is quite true that a military person cannot award himself a medal, it has to be signed by his commander.

It is true however that a military person can *write* their medal citation and submit it to their superior. Said superior is supposed to verify it. If that superior has a habit of signing anything without verification, it amounts to the same thing as the person writing their own. I saw it happen when I was active duty.

That in no way implies any kind of accusation, nor do I think necessarily that Kerry did this.

Regarding child custody, I watch my older brother struggle with his ex-wife on keeping his son (my nephew) clothed and educated while he lived in NYC and the ex lived in Phila. Every month he was buying new sneakers and jeans for him because she would dress him for the weekend trip as a bum. The custody battle was nasty and she won (no cheating went on, incompatibility was the outcome). Later when my brother tried for a custody review due to her flaunting her sex life in front of her son it was a lost cause. My brother was discrete with his lady friends, the ex had her men friends out front and impersonal to my nephew. His lawyer said it would be a lost cause in liberal NY or PA trying to reverse custody judgments was a waste of money and time. So what happened to the nephew. He grew up with animosity to his father becuase of the poisoning by the ex. Until he was 18 did he understand something about his father. The system is broken and needs fixing.

Let’s change the subject again. From the Internet, you can find it on Captains Blog. It’s about a contractor who worked intell for the govmint from Reagan to GWB!

“From 1984 until 2002, I worked as a contractor doing mainly threat assessment and projection for most of the USG intelligence services but primarily CIA, DIA, Air Force and ONI. I assert that the main point about the Wall is that it was not a memo or a directive — it was a culture. There were many walls, throughout the Intelligence Community, as well as between the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement. Most of these were of long standing and existed for good reasons — security and protecting civil liberties. But under Clinton, all the walls got taller and new ones were added.

The reason for all this was that the Clinton Adminstration viewed the Intelligence Community much more as a source of potential embarrassment than as a trusted advisor. Lack of a defined national strategy based on a coherent foreign policy — the “Holiday from History” as it’s been called — coupled with Clinton’s personal animosity towards foreign policy in general and the Intelligence Community in particular devalued intelligence. Intelligence is not a magical function that produces answers for any questions posed to it at random, and it works poorly when used in that way. But that is exactly how Clinton used it, or more accurately, let his proxies use it. [Clinton did not even deign to receive the PDB for most of his tenure; Sandy Berger received it and passed along to his Boss whatever he — Berger — saw fit.]

Not believing there were critical national security issuses for which the support the Intelligence Community was vital; acutely concerned about the potential for scandals and political embarassements [as only so scandel-plagued an Adminisrtation could be], and having a strong personal distaste for the whole business, Clinton set out to reduce the risk that the Intelligence Community could do him harm by making it as difficult as possible for the Intelligence Community to do anything. He did this thru his appointments, seeing to it that political animals and risk-adverse adminstrators got key postions; by changing the rules by which intelligence could be collected — for example, banning using people with crimnal associations or “human rights abusers” as HUMINT sources, which meant that no one in the Intelligence Community could talk to a disaffected terrorist; a huge blow that badly hurt our ability to keep tabs on terrorist organiszation after 1998 — and by building walls.

To give you a concrete example of how far the “Wall” culture went, I offer the following personal anecdote:

In Oct 1999, my group, of which I was lead analyst, was given a task to evaluate threats from about 6-8 different countries. State-sponsored terrorism was one of the threats. In our proposal, we argued that evaluating state-sponsored terrorism without considering the actual terrorists organizations themselves made little sense. We knew this was a bit dicey because terrorists fell under the rubric of “non-state actors” who tended to be dealt with by different organizations than those who dealt with “state actors.” The reason for this was that non-state actors [mainly terrorists, drug lords, and mafias] were seen as law-enforcement problems, to be dealt by the FBI, DEA, and such, while hostile states were obviously the concern of the State Dept, the CIA, DIA, and the other intelligence agencies. So terrorists fell in one camp, while the states that sponsored and supported them fell in a another. And of course those two camps were heavily constrained in how they could communicate and cooperate. But our customer, DIA, agreed with us and thought the “wall” issue could be dealt with, and so terrorists were added to the statement of work.

All such projects have a kickoff meeting where we and the customers go over the analysis plan in detail, discussing data issues, security issues, potential problems and limitations, and the scope of the conclusions we expect to be able to produce. Attending our kickoff meeting were us, the DIA team for whom we were doing the analysis, and a CIA rep acting a liaison. Everything went great until the topic of terrorists came up.

At once, the DIA guys explained that maybe they’d been too optimistic about the “wall” issue. Our tasking included suggestions for threat mitigation, and since that was clearly counter-terrorism in this case, that was right out. We can’t give any counter-terrorist advice, they flatly said. OK, we said, what about assessment?

That depends, they replied.

So we starting giving them examples of things we thought we might be able to say. No, we can’t say that, they would say, it still sounds too much like advice.

Well, what about this? we’d ask. Maybe not, they’d say, such-&-such organization vets those kind of conclusions; they’re the experts and we can’t step on their charter.

This went on for more than an hour and finally, somewhat exasperated, we asked them exactly what we could say; what type of conclusions we were allowed to draw. At this point, the DIA guys and CIA rep got together and basically gave us a dump on who in the government was doing what with respect to terrorism and what the rules of cooperation [or lack of it] were. At one point, they started talking about an organization we recognized as being in DIA. Wait a minute! we said, those guys are DIA! If they are working that, then we can say this and this and this!

“Yeah,” the head DIA guy said, a bit sheepishly, “they are DIA, but they’re a different part of DIA and we can’t talk to them.” [That’s the only quote from the meeting where I recall actual words spoken.]

We blinked a few times, and then all consideration of terrorism was dropped from the task. But not before it was pointed out that we and DIA weren’t really counter-terrorism experts [although we were threat assessment experts], that the problem was probably being worked by so-&-so and such-&-such, and that they probably had better data, more experience, more resources than we did.

That is what Clinton and Gorelik’s Wall culture did. It just didn’t just prevent more effective cooperation and data sharing; it prevented the whole question of terrorism being addressed in a coherent fashion at all. No one was working the problem effectively, but I bet they all thought — just like we were told – that someone else was. That’s the “I thought you brought the matches” school of intelligence analysis, and that was the end effect of Clinton’s intelligence policy: it turned the whole process of intelligence into one big game of “Who brought the matches?””

Well well well. Ain’t that special. People from the inside are now speaking out on the full coverup by the 9/11 staffers. I like the truth coming out.

Custody of children. Henceforth the rights and responsibilities of the parents in the absence of misconduct shall be equal, and the mother shall be as fully entitled to the custody, control and earnings of the children as the father, and in case of the father’s death, the mother shall come into as full and complete control of the children and their estate as the father does in case of the mother’s death.

Rabbit @ 32: No, it’s about adults in a 21 and over environment and having the freedom to smoke indoors if one chooses. Whatever happened to choices and personal accountibility? The State has no fucking business deciding such things for us. Let the smokers go to the smoking bars, etc. and let the non-smokers, or people that are bothered by smoking go to the non-smoking establishments; it’s that fucking simple. I am a non-smoker, and I know that I have a choice to where I choose to frequent and where I don’t. (I am not bothered by smoking) Just more frivolous and needless laws, and I suspect our “Governor” if you can call her that, will sign on to this issue, as she signs everything else put in front of her; which I suspect has to do with her lack of testicular virility. Thanks.

Re: Intelligence. Well, Putty, you certainly have all the elements of the right-wing diatribe down pat: Blame 9/11 on intelligence breakdown, and blame intelligence breakdown on Clinton … and while you’re at it, throw in something about “Clinton scandals.”

For starters, the scandals during the Clinton administration were few and far between, and pale in comparison to the gusher of scandals emanating from the current administration. But I digress.

What you posted is largely opinion — one man’s opinion, and not a neutral man, at that. This sounds like someone with a partisan axe to grind, and those can be found everywhere in D.C. and environs.

9/11 was not primarily a result of intelligence failures. It was primarily a result of neglect. Bush wasn’t doing his job, period. It’s been well documented by Time magazine and others that Bush and his team deliberately ignored warnings about Al Qaida. He let his visceral dislike of Clinton and the Democrats get in the way of common sense and good judgment. In other words, the president of the U.S. behaved like a junior high school kid having a jealous rage against a classmate. Too bad for the 2,800+ innocent people who died as a result of Bush’s dereliction of duty (not his first; he got in this habit while not serving in the TANG), plus the 1,800+ who have died as a result of Bush subsequently attacking the wrong country.

Let’s put blame where it belongs. BUSH WAS IN CHARGE and 9/11 HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH. He gets paid to take responsibility for what happens, not blame it on others. Remember Truman and his “The Buck Stops Here” sign?

No, because RCW 26.16.125 is part of the community property statute, and doesn’t apply to awarding custody of the child(ren) in a divorce proceeding. That’s found in the parenting plan provisions of RCW 26.09.181 et seq.

Rabbit @ 84 – I think it goes deeper than that. The system is part of the problem. There are corporate and government empires and careers within them that feed off divorce. They NEED a constant influx of cases.

For most women, and mothers especially, a divorce is better than winning the lottery. She gets a huge amount of child support every month for which there is no accountability, and if she managed to keep the marriage going for ten years, then she gets permanent vaginamoney.

So by making divorce so financially attractive for women, and so devastating to men, the system encourages gold digging by women, and forces men to spend fortunes on attorneys to defend themselves. The system makes money and perpetuates itself at the expense of social stability and to the detriment of the children.

In the feminocracy that we have now, nothing is going to change, because the girlz who run the state right now are pretty satisfied with how things work. The only way this can change is through the initiative process with leadership of reform by the victims of the current system.

You have to look at the specific proposal. I don’t have a problem with having designated places (e.g., “smoking bars”) for smokers. However, the non-smoking population does have a right to not have their health affected by those who choose to smoke. Remember the old adage, “Your freedom to swing your fist stops where my nose starts.” To the extent there is still debate over the effects of second-hand smoke, public policy should be governed by a presumption of harm with the burden of proof on smokers to prove second-harm smoke isn’t harmful. (Most public health officials believe it is.) What makes sense to me, policy-wise, is to enact a general ban on indoor smoking for the protection of non-smokers with selective “indoor enclaves” (e.g., smoking bars) for smokers. That accomodates everyone.

Let the business orwers decide. If their business suffers they can decide to change the policy or not. No customer has a right to a smoke free environment because they have no intrinsic right to patronage.

And let the consumers decide to patronize or not. Put a friggin sign on the door that says smoking is allowed, and if they choose to enter, then they choose to accept the risk. If the policy is anathema to them, let them express that by going somewhere else.

Some places already ban it in cars when you have kids with you, so I expect that very soon they will ban if from inside homes as well, and probably any public area where someone might see you smoke, let alone have to smell it.

First of all, liberals don’t “hate” corporations. We realize large companies produce at least three things of value to society — useful products and services, jobs, and investment returns. (Although we also know small businesses, not large corporations, are the job engine of the U.S. economy.)

We frequently hear it argued that corporations have no duty to society but only to their shareholders, and that a corporation exists to earn profits for its shareholders. This is essentially an argument in favor of government regulation of corporations, because if government doesn’t regulate corporations, there is nothing to protect society from profit-driven corporate actions that harm consumers or the general public.

Okay, now that we have the corporate issues out of the way, Washington is one of the states that doesn’t allow punitive damages, so you wouldn’t likely see a $253 million award here.

Where punitive damages are allowed, the rationale is not to enrich trial lawyers, but to deter wrongful behavior by the defendant. Punitive damages should be awarded in cases of wilful behavior, not to punish ordinary negligence. The logic behind gigantic punitive damage awards is that, for deterrence to work, the judgment must be proportional to the offense and the size of the company. To a giant corporation like Merck, a $250,000 wrongful death award isn’t even a mosquito bite, and wouldn’t deter the company from continuing to sell a dangerous product. Vioxx was a “blockbuster drug” (by definition, one that generations over $1 billion a year of sales), and theofit-driven corporate management wouldn’t pull such a product of its own volition, even knowing of its dangers. (We’ve seen many examples of big companies continuing to sell products they knew were dangerous to consumers in recent corporate history.) To protect consumers, you have to hit them with a hammer.

Corporations are not left unprotected against so-called “runaway juries.” First of all, if the evidence isn’t sufficient for a reasonable jury to find deliberate wrongdoing, the judge can and should set aside the punitive award altogether. In virtually all courts, judge have authority to reduce jury awards the court deems excessive according to established legal guidelines. In all probability, the $253 million award in the Merck case will be reduced, but the news media being what it is — media love to run sensational headlines and ignore the boring sequel — we probably won’t hear much about it when the courts knock the $253 million award down to a few million or, more likely, the lawyers for the plaintiff and Merck agree on a more reasonable figure out of court.

From a public policy standpoint, the objective should be to protect consumers from dangerous products. Vioxx (and similar drugs marketed by other companies) has been pulled from the market, therefore does not represent a continuing danger to the public. Courts will take this into consideration. There are 4,000 cases pending, and undoubtedly more will be filed, as lawyers rush to cash in on the Vioxx gusher. It would appear to me that the public policy objectives can be achieved simply by requiring Merck (and the other companies) to pay consequential damages in cases where it is proved the product caused harm.

If punitive damages are to be part of the mix, and we assume it takes $250 million to motivate Merck to behave in the public interest, then logic argues this amount should be spread over the total number of cases. Let’s say that ultimately damages are awarded in 10,000 cases, then logic argues each plaintiff should get 1/10,000th of $250 million or $25,000. There is no need or justification for the plaintiffs to get more, because in all cases, the purpose of punitive damages is to change the defendant’s behavior, not compensate the plaintiff, and punitive awards are always a windfall for the plaintiff. Presumably the plaintiff has been fully compensated for his or her actual loss by the compensatory damages award.

$250 million will hardly bankrupt Merck. That is only a small fraction of Merck’s annual profits. The real threat to Merck is the potential compensatory damages out there. If such damages are awarded in 10,000 cases and average $1,000,000 per case, that is $10 billion. Of course, where potential compensatory damages are sufficient to deter corporate misbehavior, this is an argument against awarding punitive damages in any amount.

The legal system is not smooth, perfect, wholly logical. It’s messy, with ragged edges. Large damage awards by juries swayed by emotion and clever lawyers’ arguments can and do put companies under. Arguably some of them need to be put out of business for society’s well-being. On the other hand, good companies with beneficial products and services have been destroyed by lawsuits. There isn’t a simple answer to this issue. Society must find a balance.

I oppose Republican versions of “tort reform,” for a number of reasons. First of all, lawsuits have served the beneficial function of taking dangerous products off the market, and keeping corporate renegades in check. History warns us that if the threat of litigation is removed, many companies will run amok, and innocent people will be harmed. Secondly, arbitrary caps or ceilings on jury awards are illogical and are unnecessary to protect defendants from arbitrary, unreasonable, or excessive jury awards, as such protections already exist in the legal system. Third, the problem has been overstated by those interested in gaining legal immunity. They shine the spotlight on a tiny number of highly publicized cases, but in the real world, most personal injury verdicts are relatively modest and in line with the plaintiff’s loss. Fourth, “tort reform” as pushed by the GOP and industry interests would give defendants immunities from financial responsibility for their actions they don’t deserve, and preclude the most seriously injured plaintiffs from recovering enough to pay their ongoing medical expenses. A young person who has been turned into a quadriplegic by an accident will incur millions of dollars of medical and care expenses over his or her lifetime, so the damage award after litigation expenses needs to be, and should be, millions of dollars. Otherwise, taxpayers will have to take care of that person, in order for the guilty defendant to skate. That’s unfair to taxpayers.

Finally, “tort reform” is politically motivated. Trial lawyers are the single biggest contributor group to the Democratic Party. By attacking trial lawyers’ income, the GOP hopes to destroy the Democratic Party’s most important source of contributions, hampering the Democrats’ ability to compete in elections. As a Democrat, I’m not willing to go along with that unless the GOP is required to give up a comparable source of campaign contributions. Big Pharma happens to be one of the GOP’s largest contributors. If we’re going to deprive Democrats of campaign contributions from trial lawyers who make money by suing drug companies, then we should also deprive the GOP of campaign contributions from drug companies. The GOP is assaulting one of the Democrats’ most important funding sources, and I won’t go along with it. It’s that simple.

“I think it goes deeper than that. The system is part of the problem. There are corporate and government empires and careers within them that feed off divorce. They NEED a constant influx of cases.”

I don’t agree. How do corporations or governments cause divorce? They don’t.

Divorce cases are a nuisance to overworked courts. They’re also a small part of the private bar’s work and revenue, and divorce work is universally hated in the legal profession. Divorce is such a small percentage of what the legal system does that if it went away, no judges or lawyers would lose their jobs.

I don’t see where the government empires or careers feeding off divorce are, unless you’re referring to the child support enforcement programs that exist in all 50 states, and the tiny federal bureaucracy that oversees them. However, child support is not directly linked to divorce. The majority of these agencies’ workloads involve parents who aren’t married or are separated but not divorced, so the child support bureaucracy would exist even if no one ever divorced. Government child support programs were created in the 1960s because experience showed the honor system didn’t work and most parents separated from their children wouldn’t provide support unless they had government enforcement breathing down their necks. Human nature is human nature. Unless you want society to force parents of dependent children to live together when they don’t want to, the alternative to government enforcement of child support is paying taxes for welfare programs.

Outside of the child support enforcement program, and the courts that handle domestic cases, I don’t see anything in state or local government that has anything to do with divorce.

I don’t agree that women, in typical cases, get a “huge” amount of child support. In fact, in the majority of cases, they get no child support. That’s because the compliance rate with child support orders is less than 50%, and without a government enforcement program, it would be less than 20%. The average support order is less than $300, including cases involving multiple kids. How is that enriching the custodial parent? The reality is that custodial parents bear the lion’s share of child rearing expenses because of the low compliance rate and the fact that low income and inability to pay limits the support obligations of those noncustodial parents who do pay.

Mark, as I’ve stated in my posts above, I believe fathers on the whole are getting somewhat of a raw deal and certain public policies related to custody and support should be revisited and revised. You personally may well have legitimate and compelling grievances against the system. However, if you want to be taken seriously, you can’t go around repeating false stereotypes or bumper sticker slogans. There are predatory women out there, but the overwhelming majority don’t have children or get divorced to reach into a man’s pockets. The fact is, most of the men available to most of the women have shallow pockets, and there are a zillion easier ways to get money in this world than by bearing a man’s children and then divorcing him, raising the children by herself, and trying to squeeze support money out of him. Divorce results from our human flaws and weaknesses. In no small number of cases, it results from the husband’s cheating, drinking, or abuse. Laws, courts, and government have to deal with the messy aftermath of failed relationships and the impact it has on society and our most vulnerable citizens, young children. There are responsibilities there, especially to the children, that can’t be ignored and sometimes the parents’ interests have to be subordinated to the children’s needs. That’s the way it is, and that’s never going to change.

What is needed is laws and enforcement mechanisms that protect society’s interests and protect the children while treating the parents fairly and even handedly. Our laws and public policies are not perfect in that regard. Energy devoted to improving them may be fruitful. Playing the blame game is not constructive and will not motivate people to listen to your legitimate grievances and arguments.

I think it’s appropriate to ban smoking in cars when children are riding, for the same reasons it’s proper to enact laws requiring parents to secure children in car seats. The children are vulnerable and can’t protect themselves, and society has an interest in protecting children where the parents refuse or fail to do so.

I can’t accept your “implied consent” model across the board. What if someone lives in a small town where there’s only one grocery store, and the store allows smoking, then there is no place for that person to buy groceries without being subjected to second-hand smoke. I think indoor smoking should be confined to certain types of businesses, such as bars and restaurants (I’m sure you can think of others), and let those businesses decide whether to cater to a smoking or non-smoking clientele as you suggested.

I think it’s obvious that smoking should be banned at hospitals, schools, and other places serving “captive customers.”

Hillary’s role as first lady in appointing Jamie Gorelick to replace Webb Hubbell as her eyes and ears at the Justice Department – a particularly disastrous move given Gorelick’s “Wall of Separation” directive, which critics say blocked the FBI from questioning lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta a year before the attacks.

Mrs. Clinton’s decision to criticize President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war to the Arab press in a May 2004 interview that her office at first tried to deny. According to an account in a leading Iranian newspaper, Hillary blasted Bush Administration policies as “arrogant and insolent.”

A claim by media mogul and one-time former Clinton supporter Steven Brill that Hillary had her office provide false documentation showing that she had dozens of meetings with 9/11 victim families. “None of it turned out to be true,” Brill said after checking with the families themselves.

Hillary’s continued reliance on Sandy Berger as a senior national security advisor, even after Berger pled guilty to stealing top secret 9/11 documents from the National Archives – and shredding some of them. In March, the New York Times reported that Berger helped Mrs. Clinton draft a speech she gave to a German security conference.

Clueless Or SuperDumbness which is it? You never dismiss the information, just try and slam me. Go for it. Regarding the Stink NoProgress site, it’s about as useful as DailyKos. No substance just flubstance. Why is the 9/11 Commission taking a different tack now? Looks like your side is starting to shit some big bricks.

So for you let me post the Hannity & Combes show with LTCol Shaffer:

COLMES: Lieutenant Colonel, explain to me, how is it they deny it? They also — staff members, like executive director Phil Zelikow, say, despite your statements, they were not told the names of these hijackers, as you claim?

SHAFFER: Well, I don’t know how they can overlook that, because the fact is this: They were told not once but twice by a fellow officer, a Navy captain, later on in 2004.

In my October discussion with him, I did not discuss the names of the terrorists. I’m not saying that. I never said that. I did talk about the fact that we found three cells through the use of some advanced technology, two to three cells which conducted 9/11 attacks, to include Atta.

Now, that was the only name I remembered. You have to understand, I was in Afghanistan deployed. I didn’t have my documents with me. I didn’t have the background. So during this discussion, it was using some notes that I put together myself, based on my memory as talking points, and I discussed the fact that Able Danger was able to use data mining techniques, that were at the time cutting-edge, to merge out of this information data.

HANNITY: So there’s two big questions here. Question number one is, who stopped the investigation and this important information from getting to the proper authorities to investigate these guys, one? And number two, the 9/11 Commission had known about this. And in the last week, they’ve given at least five or six different accounts that I can tell about what you had told them. Explain that.

SHAFFER: Well, on the account thing, I don’t understand it, because I’ve reread, and read, and reread their 12 August account. Their paragraph describing my meeting with them is not even in the ballpark with what happened.

Again, I have talking points that I prepared before the meeting. I used those talking points to talk of. I talked about another human operation, as well as outlining and, in a time line fashion, the whole Able Danger story. And none of those points are even addressed in their statement.

So I don’t understand how they could be, like, so far, you know, off what I told them, based on the fact that I do have my talking points from that meeting.

So your blog against the real words. Ha ha ha!!!

So on a lighter note: I was in Canada last week. It doesn’t matter what party you belong to – this is absolutely hilarious.

Recently watched a show on Canadian TV. There was a black comedian who said he misses Bill Clinton. “Yep, that’s right – I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever got to having a black man as President. Number 1 – He played the sax. Number 2 – He smoked weed. Number 3 – He had his way with ugly white women. Even now? Look at him… his wife works, and he don’t! And, he gets a check from the government every month.

Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America’s shelves this week with “Clinton Soup,” in honor of one of the nations’ most distinguished men. It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water. Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton. The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada. When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied, “I don’t know, I never had one.” American Indians nicknamed Bill Clinton “Walking Eagle” because he is so full of crap he can’t fly.

Clinton lacked only three things to become one of America’s finest leaders: integrity, vision, wisdom. Clinton was doing the work of three men: Larry, Curly and Moe. The Clinton revised judicial oath: “I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know.” Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to do “Hanky Panky between Bushes.”

[Comment from a “guvment” hack SF employee who is starting to “see the light”.] ………. I work for the City and County of San Francisco. I am embarrassed to tears by this. For the last several years, the city “government” (I use the term laughingly) has been dominated by the ultra-left types. It shows. Major corporations are leaving. Families with kids are leaving. The middle class cannot survive here unless they have owned property here for years. The average house is $800,000 and the average rent for a 2 bedroom apt is over $2000. For city government, business is evil, property is evil, ownership is evil. Everything revolves around “the poor”. Now, I have to laugh because they keep discovering that taxes are falling, demand for services by “the poor” is skyrocketing, and there is no money. Idiots such as Mr Mirkarimi have just discovered that when you run out the producers there is no money for the parasites. Rocket science, I tell ya. [Atlas has Shrugge, parastie liberal Democrats!]

Clueless, since you are clueless, let me add some time for you to find a clue.

If in October, 2003 the meeting between Lt. Col. Shaffer and staffer Anthony Zelikow of the 911 Commission occurred, whom else knew about this data? Supposedly Zelikow notifies the Commission this meeting occurred with Shaffer. Next we find out that Sandy Burglar acquires and destroys as many as 50 classified documents from OUR(everyones) National Archives in October, 2003. Notice the same bat dat & same bat time. What did Alfalfa Berger take and destroy to hide from us?

Shaffer’s story would be a lot less credible if the 9/11 Commission’s story on what they knew didn’t keep changing. Every time they have to modify their story it gives more and more weight to Shaffer’s story.

I make perfect sense. You are just too dense. Did you leave your brain at the Fence? Keep looking for them clues. Did you lose some screws? Don’t let it give you the blues. You are not well read either. Anything you disagree with you call a freeper.

Kean & Hamilton said they never received the information from Zelikow. At least that was one of their stories last week. Do you need Internet skillz refresher course? So now everyone is scrambling to determine what was known from those meetings and why Zelikow hid the information. Why is the Commission story continually changing? Why ain’t your other circle fly members coming to your aid? Maybe they see the train coming while you still be looking for that clue for $50.00? In fact, you are still on the “Give me a clue for $50.00” line while everyone else is playing Double Jeopardy. You be afraid of the truth. You be real afraid. That’s why you are truly, truly clueless!

What didn’t it say? What Freeper Puddy and Captain Ed wanted it to say? Like “Bush good, Clinton bad”? Like reading “My Pet Goat” was a higher national priority than reading “Bin Laden determined to strike U.S”?

Name the jail Sandy Berger is doing time in for his felony conviction.

Documents detailing the work of a top secret military intelligence unit that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks have disappeared, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency’s liaison for the group, code named Able Danger.

“There’s some troubling things that have happened both to me and the way the [Able Danger] information [was handled],” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told C-Span’s “Sunday Morning Journal.”

Story Continues Below

“Shortly after I talked to the 9/11 Commission, there was some issues going on about the documentation. Right now as it stands this minute, to my knowledge, the documentation I had . . . we don’t know where it is.” “It’s not where I left it back in March of 2003,” Shaffer said, which was “in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area.”

Shaffer told C-Span he had “one full set of Able Danger documents in my holdings from the DIA.”

The Able Danger whistleblower had said previously that a member of the team had delivered two briefcases full of documents to the 9/11 Commission – but Commission spokesman have said they have found nothing that mentioned Atta by name.

For once we agree. I say bars should be either designated smoking or non, as many are voluntarily now. That lets people know what kind of environment they will be in before entering. I agree with banning indoor smoking where kids are present too; in fact if the only indoor places one could smoke was a bar or a casino, that’s just fine with me. But, this I-901 takes it too far by banning it everywhere under the guise of “worker safety” and using scare tactics. Last time I checked we were all adults and can make adult decisions such as where to frequent and how heathly we choose to live our lives. Thanks.

Rupert Wabbit: Looks like more than just one person is talking about Able Danger. From the Internet:”Col. Shaffer said his conversations with Mr. Hastert and Mr. Hoekstra took place before he and members of the Able Danger team spoke as anonymous sources to reporters in the offices of Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, on Aug. 8.” The more I dig the more you look stoopid!!!

Since Rupert you be a lawyer, look at this web site and tell me about this: http://www.usdoj.gov/oipr/ – “The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, under the direction of the Counsel for Intelligence Policy, is responsible for advising the Attorney General on all matters relating to the national security activities of the United States. The Office prepares and files all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (from Jimmy Carter time -inserted by Puddy), assists Government agencies by providing legal advice on matters of national security law and policy, and represents the Department of Justice on variety of interagency committees such as the National Counterintelligence Policy Board. The Office also comments on and coordinates other agencies’ views regarding proposed legislation affecting intelligence matters.

The Office serves as adviser to the Attorney General and various client agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Defense and State Departments, concerning questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.”

Excerpt: – He blames Sept. 11 on poor leadership from people like former CIA Director George Tenet, his chief deputy, Jim Pavitt, and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who were invited, but declined, to appear on Sunday’s 60 Minutes.

“Richard Clarke has said that you’re really sort of a hothead, a middle manager who really didn’t go to any of the cabinet meetings in which important things were discussed, and that basically you were just uninformed,” says Kroft.

“I certainly agree with the fact that I didn’t go to the cabinet meetings. But I’m certainly also aware that I’m much better informed than Mr. Clarke ever was about the nature of the intelligence that was available against Osama bin Laden and which was consistently denigrated by himself and Mr. Tenet,” says Scheuer.

“I think Mr. Clarke had a tendency to interfere too much with the activities of the CIA, and our leadership at the senior level let him interfere too much,” continues Scheuer. “So criticism from him, I kind of wear as a badge of honor.”

So more people are talking and the Cult of Clinton is falling apart!!!

Clueless, again you measure up to your karma. I am not deflecting blame you stoopid sorry excuse for a child of God. The only other person I used that on is don*****don. And lately he has elevated himslef from that status. So you are in a league all your own Clueless.

You are the ridiculous one, because by the tone and words used you are living on the DailyKos or ThinkProgress web sites. Are you reading anything else? No I guess not. You provided on the 18th four day old materials. I continue to provide new material every day. How else do I know what you read unless I walk over there by my fingers and read the worthless shit they spew. Almost everyone shits through their anus. But on those two sites they shit through their minds. Maybe that’s Progressive, a new definition!!!

No, I said that the DailyKos types like you have to see where the shit started. If it was Eisenhower, so be it. I wasn’t born yet. If it’s Carter with his middle east policy, so be it. If it’s Clinton because he ignored getting Bin Laden (Read Dereliction of Duty by Lt. Col. Patterson, I assume you can read clueless), so be it. If it’s Bush because it happened while he’s president, so be it. You are such a stuuupid (you’re not worth a stoopid) person. You are so blinded by your utter hatred of GWB. To me it looks like a continual linkage of multiple events. We now see that there are more of these events during Clinton’s term than previously known. Scares the shit out of your mind Clueless?

Well if you put a better candidate, one who had a backbone like a Lieberman, maybe some of us would have voted blue. But your ass was exposed and we covered it in November 2004 by 3+MM people. The evidence was there before Bush took office and now more and more people are starting to sing. What about the 9/11 Commission latest statements can’t you comprehend. If I was so off base, GBS would be front and center correcting me. He isn’t because maybe just maybe he can see the forest through the trees. Something your sorry eyesight is lacking in. God bless you ‘clueless’, because you’re not getting any blessings here.

Blessings? I’m not trolling for blessings Puddy Freep least of all yours. And I’m blinded by my hate for GWB? Puddy get real, oh sorry you’re one of history’s actors. All the bile I see is coming from your direction.

You’re coming out with new material every day? I’ve got to give your side points for creativity for sure.

GBS not taking issue with you? I wonder why I bother with such hallucinations.

Oh and check the rabbit’s latest link on the latest thread. Kind of takes the air out of your gasbag does it?

Nothing scares me about you and whatever nonsense you spew Puddy Freep. Freep on dude!

Dude! It’s beginning to look like Weldon and Shaffer can’t back up their claims, as the Pentagon said today, they can’t find any information that Atta was identified by name in 2000. Only generalities of terrorist cells, but no specifics on names, dates or locations.

Hmmmmmm. . . .

As I said earlier, I’m reserving judgment on Able Danger and Weldon because we don’t know enough yet. There is much speculation from the right as to what the “facts” are, and the Pentagon has thrown some cold water on that today. I was, and still am, highly suspicious that almost 4 years later political operatives from the right are now coming forward about what happened then, while things are SNAFU today.

Shaffer’s integrity is called into question for losing his security clearances. If Karl Rove can’t lose his security clearances for his negligent disclosure or confirmation of a CIA operative, I can only imagine what the good Colonel must have done to lose his. It wasn’t the $67 cell phone bill either.

At the end of the day, it’s not what we did wrong that is most important, it’s what ARE we doing wrong today. Like spending almost 1,900 American lives, 15,000 wounded and untold hundreds of billions of dollars to build an Islamic state instead of a truly free democracy in the heart of the middle east.

Bush’s lack of vision is revealing that the laws of unintended consequences are in play. Bush is building an Islamic state that sits on the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world.

“Pentagon researchers have found no evidence that Able Danger had Mohamed Atta’s name. He said he was unsure whether the unit came up with the identities of the other three hijackers but then said that none of Shaffer’s specific claims had been validated.

Shaffer himself has not provided any documentary proof, Di Rita said, and said Shaffer has presented his information as second hand.”

C’mon, Puddybud, it’s time to give up the ghost on this one. IF, there were such proof of these claims, certainly Rumsfeld would have ferreted it out by now. And, if he couldn’t, how does that bode for Rumsfeld in the way he is handling such “super secret” programs at the Pentagon?

If Rummy could pin this one on Clinton, it would have happened, literally, years ago.

I drink form the water cooler, you should, too. The Kool-aid impairs your judgment, Puddybud. You are Hell bent on putting the blame on a Democrat, and in particular, President Clinton, either personally or by default.

Either way, this story, like most of the fabrications coming from the right for the last 4-5 years, doesn’t stand up when we shed the light of truth on the story.

However, Puddybud, like Ken Starr, if you keep digging long enough, and hard enough, you just might, maybe, find something.

Time is not on our soldiers side, though. Stop looking in the rearview mirror and start looking ahead. That’s where our opportunities as a nation lie, around the next bend in the proverbial road.

‘At the end of the day, it’s not what we did wrong that is most important, it’s what ARE we doing wrong today. Like spending almost 1,900 American lives, 15,000 wounded and untold hundreds of billions of dollars to build an Islamic state instead of a truly free democracy in the heart of the middle east.’

This statement is quite conflicting. Wouldn’t the vast majority of dead and wounded be in the category ‘it’s not what we did wrong that is most important ‘, as they are in the past?

I, too will withhold judgement on Able Danger until more facts are known. The only reason to probe it completely is to correct policies and processes that preceded 9/11 if things can be improved in the future. The first half of your statement implies the same, yet the latter part feeds the notion that the historical aspects should season the debate.

GBS: Here is a shocker. If they become a sharia state I will be upset too. That being said, I will wait to see the outcome.

Amazingly you left out these two statements:

“But nothing that would seem to corroborate specifically what congressman Weldon and Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer recall, although as you know they don’t have what they said they saw. That makes it a little more difficult,” he said.

Navy Captain Scott Phillpott, whose recollections Shaffer also said he relied on, told a presidential commission investigating the September 11 attacks in July 2004 that he remembered seeing Atta’s name on an Able Danger chart in the spring of 2000.

So just because they can’t find the documents yet, you are saying that two 05+ level officers are lying? Well maybe not you but clueless is!

Clueless, you can call me anything you want. Name calling. You probably get an erection calling people names. Go for it. But for you edification, I have only visited Free Republic once. When Goldy said they were dissing that dude who needed a transplant, I vowed never to go there and I have not. But yous an ass so what do you know.

We conclude that Col Shaffer’s recollections of Captain’s Phillpott’s recollections together with Captain Ed’s anonymous sourced submissions with a dash of Michelle Maglalang and Spew Spewit was enough to send Puddy Freep into another Bill Clinton hating frenzy!

When in doubt about the current course of things – just hate Bill Clinton more!

Now Puddy “waits and sees” about a sharia state in Iraq but no need to do that Able Danger and “the wall” just jump right in with the rest of the Clinton haters!

The reality of it all is that there isn’t just one set of records at the Pentagon for anything. The fact that they’ve come out today and making their statement, they’re signaling to Weldon, “Danger, thin ice!!”

A) I don’t think you meant upset, you meant something stronger I’m sure. I know you’d never support or condone the blood of Americans being spilled to create an Islamic state, right?

B) Can’t prove a universal negative can you? I had the papers, I don’t have them any more, I don’t know what happened to them but we ID’d Atta, now prove I didn’t have them and my claim is false; is a weak argument to put forward for such a historically significant accusation.

Here’s the other problem. The amount of data that was claimed to have been mined (I think possibly you posted 2 terabytes?) you’d think that out of all the people working at the Pentagon, someone would have knowledge of such an operation, don’t you think? Don’t you think there would have been a significant team of experts working on this project that could verify the the assertions? Now, this is a point that doesn’t need much thought, if there were such a program that clearly ID’d Atta, don’t you think that Rummy would have found that group of people by now?

Don’t you think Rove would want that information?

Common sense prevails over all here. Produce the people who can verify the claim. Otherwise, you got another Swift Boat Vets scenario here. The laws of unintended consequences from the smear campaign has reared its ugly head and bit the conservatives in the behind.

The gist of the conversation is Gorelick and the 90’s vs the significant problems we face today. While it is true that the dead are “in the past” the problem is continuing to this day which means, like the national deficit, the total is constantly going up with no end in sight.

So the dead of this conflict are in the present tense meaning, staying the course is not a policy, it’s rhetoric that is killing a lot of Americans unnecessarily.

GBS, you are too kind after all Puddy Freep thinks Sandy Berger put the “suitcase” of evidence in his socks. Probably thought that made sense after a “nod-nod yes-yes” session while reading Captain Ed or Spew Spewit.

Well well well. I come back from clothes shopping for the kids and look at what arrived on my PC. Now we have three people saying it’s true. What will the DailyKos and ThinkProgress say now? Lookie here what the NY Times put out: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08.....r=homepage – Navy Officer Affirms Assertions About Pre-9/11 Data on Atta

Published: August 22, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 – An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. “My story is consistent,” said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command. “Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000.”

Representative Weldon also arranged an interview with a former employee of a defense contractor who said he had helped create a chart in 2000 for the intelligence program that included Mr. Atta’s photograph and name.

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta’s name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

When the NY Times does it correctly they are not the NY Slimes. I have an Internet subscription to them, and the WA Post, and other newspapers becuz it’s free, scanning them for ammunition to use against Donk Moonbats like the Karma Klueless.

Maybe some of you lefties should wait, scan the Internet, visit the MSM and then decide if an appropriate response it needed. Looks like you guys stepped in it again. And oh yes Karma Klueless, you should read Captain’s Blog. He performs analysis not ANAL LYSIS of DailyKos and ThinkProgress.

Published: August 22, 2005 WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 – An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta’s name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. “My story is consistent,” said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command. “Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000.”

The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta’s name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart for some time and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.

From Rich Lowry of National Review: “RE: THE ABLE DANGER CHART ON NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SHOW [Rich Lowry ] E-mail:

The National Geographic channel is running a two part miniseries on events leading up to and including 9/11. The first part was on this evening and did a wonderful job of tracing the rise of OBL and what is know about those involved in 9/11. It was a truly fascinating 2 hour show and was very informative.

So how does this relate to the Able Danger Chart? Well, during the last half hour of the show when it was detailing what was happening in the months leading up to 9/11 the special operations center in Florida was mentioned when the show said they received a chart containing Mohamed Atta and one of the other pilots. The show then said the special ops centcom decided they were unable to share the info with the FBI. And that was it. Maybe 20 seconds when they mentioned a chart with Atta and another pilot and the special ops groups located at I believe McGill base and how the info was not passed to the FBI. Nothing more and no mention of Able Danger.

You may want to contact the producers of the show and ask what info they have on this chart. They must have something because they included it in the program. Having followed the Able Danger story over the past few weeks I was taken aback by the casual and brief mention of the “chart” given to the special ops group.”

Wow, National Geographic knew about the chart? That would really be interesting.

If you want to attend ex-President Clinton’s upcoming conference on solving global poverty, you better not be poor yourself.

The web site for the so-called “Clinton Global Initiative” – set for Sept. 15-17 in Manhattan – is hawking tickets for $15,000 a-piece.

Story Continues Below

For that princely sum, “participants will play a role in deciding on the programs that the Initiative will fund throughout the year.” “This nonpartisan conference will bring together a diverse and select group of current and former heads of state, business leaders, noteworthy academicians, and key NGO representatives to participate in a series of dynamic interactive workshops,” the web site claims.

“The group will strategize on the best methods to reduce poverty; use religion as a force for reconciliation and conflict resolution; implement new business strategies and technologies to combat climate change; and strengthen governance.”

The ex-president himself – who used to say he was obsessed with getting Osama bin Laden – says he’s found a new obsession.

“In my life now, I am obsessed with only two things,” he now insists. “I don’t want to anybody die before their time and I don’t want to see good people spend their energies without making a difference.”

Attendance at the CGI is supposedly by invitation only. But for those willing to pony up the $15 large, Mr. Clinton is apparently willing to make an exception.

Here is the transcript from the National Geographic Program recently shown. tks.nationalreview.com/archives/073883.asp

TKS reader Stan recorded the National Geographic special on 9/11, and he transcribed the section that seemed to be referring to Able Danger:

“AT THIS AIR FORCE BASE IN TAMPA (Picture of Entrance Gate to MacDill Air Force Base), MEMBERS OF THE U.S. ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ARE REVIEWING AN UNUSUAL CHART THAT REPORTEDLY IDENTIFIES BOTH ATTA (picture ID of Atta shown) AND AL-SHEHHI (picture ID of Al-Shehhi shown) AS LIKELY MEMBERS OF AN AL-QAEDA TERROR CELL OPERATING WITHIN THE U.S. THE OFFICIALS DECIDE THEY CANNOT PASS THIS INFORMATION ALONG TO THE FBI, IN PART BECAUSE THE MEN ARE HOLDING VALID U.S. VISAS AND MAY BE OFF LIMITS FROM INTELLIGENCE GATHERING BY THE MILITARY.” The next segment discussed terrorist training camps in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Since JDB a lefty, likes NRO; more from National Review: “The Pentagon has yet to confirm any of this with anything on paper. It’s tough to ignore that Shaffer’s account makes the Pentagon look terrible; not pursuing a lead on an al-Qaeda operative because of the doubts about the legal ramifications of military intelligence collecting data on American citizens. (Of course, the hijackers were not U.S. citizens.) We can wonder about how eager the Pentagon would be to find the paperwork that would verify claims that they made legal errors in 2000 that may have cost nearly 3,000 lives; but right now we have no evidence that there’s some hidden cache of files that would verify these claims.

• The Gorelick “wall” is a bit of a side issue for now. (First let’s figure out exactly what Able Danger knew, when it learned it, and how the process of trying to contact the FBI went.) On the one hand, as a Justice Department official, Gorelick’s directives should not have been seen as the last word at William Cohen’s Department of Defense. On the other hand, as Ed and William Tate noted, her infamous memo was also directed to the DOJ Counsel of Intelligence Policy and Review, which advises the Attorney General, CIA, FBI, the Department of Defense and State on “questions of law, regulation, and guidelines as well as the legality of domestic and overseas intelligence operations.” In other words, both that memo and the attitude from the top made the priorities clear in the Clinton administration: Don’t foul up our prosecutions by using inadmissible intelligence gathered by foreign sources. In many cases, that is wise policy – you don’t want a criminal or terrorist walking free because the prosecutor was relying on inadmissible evidence. But the problem is, that puts a higher priority on a clean prosecution than arresting these guys before they commit their criminal act. If the act is counterfeiting, that’s not such a big deal. But if the act is crashing airliners into skyscrapers, then any court case is moot.

More from the web: “if Mohammed Atta really was in the United States in early 2000, he was traveling under another name–big shock, right?–and the September 11 commission’s carefully constructed timetable under which, among other things, he couldn’t possibly have traveled to Prague to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in 2001, is shot to hell” Which means that the Commission saying there was no evidence in Item 96 and 99 in the summary about Prague meeting between Atta and Iraqi Intelligence, etc. may be false after all. And who loves to state those moonbat 9/11 conclusions? Three guesses from five clues:

1.) Masquerades as a woman 2.) A big time athiest 3.) Big time Moonbat 4.) Name is almost a palindrome 5.) Claimed in the 90’s to like women

Once again the Goldy system kills my great responses. Looks like the Pentagon has two avenues: Continue to deny the three people who have put their names on the line and the National Geographic 9/11 special or fess up the documents and have General Schoomaker explain why he told Lt.Col. Shaffer to stand down over this information!

Here is my speculation. I will answer the second question first. Lt Col Shaffer has said more people will come forward when they get assurances that there will be no retribution for their actions. He talked about a female PhD who has intimate knowledge about the stuff. But GBS, you have to admit, where are the standard whistleblower supporters? They are in hiding. Why? It makes their beloved president Clinton will look bad now dem whistles are a blowin. Look at the standard whistleblower supporters. They can be found on a Google search.

If the Pentagon comes clean with Able Danger it alerts the world that the US has methods to ferret out information that will create the standard ACLU Moonbat alarms that we are spying on the populace. It will also force our enemies to reevaluate their communication methods regarding how electronic information is passed from point A to B.

I thought Rumsfeld wrongly fought to keep the Pentagon separate from Homeland Security. They should be working together against terror. If they fess up it makes some career military men like Gen. Schoomaker look foolish. Maybe their civilian paymasters are pulling the military strings back in the 90’s and the Pentagon may not want that under scrutiny.

My issue with this is Atta and Al-Sheddi were here on green cards, then Atta’s expired before YR 2001. So what existing US laws pertain to us checking them out in 2000? The Wall my man, The Wall. Slade Gorton looked like a real jerk last night trying to debunk Shaffer while supporting Gorelick when Phillpott and Smith appeared in the media spotlight. My problem with Slade is that he too has crossed to the dark side. The Dark Side is the special interest groups.

I forgot to add this GBS. Many years ago (late 90’s) the Germans came out with a 8000 bit encrytion scheme that the US Govmint complained about. The same company sold a 10000 bit scheme. The US wanted the main keys, the German company told the US to take a hike. I worry about that today.

Puddy let me guess, let me guess!! It’s donnageddon or as you say don*****don right? Wow that was easy if I be right.

Puddy I remember the issue. Janet Reno was upset that encrypted messages could travel the Internet, and the NSA and other groups would be blind. They complained to the German Federal Secretary of Justice about banning it in the late 90’s. The encryption scheme was 8192 and 10240 as I remember.

Hey JDB: Looks like Krugman has to make corrections to his economic and voting columns. Didn’t think I’d find them, huh. He is a stupid joke of an economist. And he’s a real ass. Well he does write for the NYT

You keep using him JDB> I’ll continue to commisserate with GBS, a smarter lefty.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.